Retrieve department-level metrics for draw risk, variance, and coverage to assess performance.
Get department metrics including draw risk, variance and coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| department_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state so, nor does it mention any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. There is no discussion of what happens if the department doesn't exist or the format of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the key metrics. No fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured for a simple get operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and lists expected metrics. It could have mentioned the return format or error handling, but for a straightforward analytics fetch, it is reasonably complete. The lack of output schema makes it the description's job to hint at what the response contains, which it does via the metric list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The only parameter, department_id, is listed in the schema as an integer, but the description adds no context about how to obtain it, what it represents, or any constraints. The description mentions the metrics but not the input parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves department metrics and even enumerates the specific metrics (draw risk, variance, coverage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_departments or rank_departments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_teacher_analytics. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: this is for fetching metrics for a single department, while siblings like compare/rank are for comparisons across departments. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.